Dated : 12 July, 2022

Final Order / Judgement

MR. AYAN SINHA,      MEMBER

This is complaint U/S 35 of C.P. Act, 2019 made by Santanu DeMuhuri alleging unfair trade practices against the OPs (1) Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd., Jadavpur (OP No. 1) and (2) Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd., situated inside the Sealdah Station (OP No. 2) and accordingly, prays for a direction upon the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with compensation and litigation cost.

FACTS IN BRIEF

The complainant purchased 8 pcs chicken momo, 2 pepsi, 2 momo burger at a price of Rs.249/- +18% GST along with extra 2pcs cheese slice at a price of Rs.30/- + 18 % GST and a Take Away Bag Small for Rs.2.54/- +12% GST on 06/04/2021 from OP No. 2, a food chain named as “Wow Momo” having branch inside the Sealdah Station, Kolkata-700014 and also having registered office at Jadavpur, Kolkata-700032. OP No. 2 being the franchise of OP No. 1 issued a bill No. KOL11404-1-0026226 of Rs.332.6/- including GST for the said food items.

As stated in the complaint petition, the complainant was charged for a Take Away Bag Small with printed logo of OPs on payment of cost of Rs.2.54/- +12% GST and so, he alleged that the cost of bag is illegal as the OPs cannot depict their information on the carry bags which are chargeable to customers. Thereafter, the complainant made several attempts to contact the OPs over telephone as per the given number but could not contact with the OPs.

            Thus, causing mental harassment, the instant case is filed by the complainant.        

            Notices were served upon both the OPs but the OPs did not appear, nor contested this case by filing W/V. So, the matter was heard ex parte against the OPs vide order dated 26/10/2021.

            Complainant had filed evidence-in-chief on affidavit in support of his contention where he has reiterated the facts as stated in the complaint. Since the complainant was not present on the final day of hearing, keeping in view of the Section 38 (3) ( c ) of the C.P. Act, 2019  where it is stated “decide the complaint on merits if the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing” and accordingly, the matter was fixed for judgment.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there was any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief (s) as prayed for?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience. We have carefully seen the documents annexed with the complaint petition.

            On perusal of the copy of Bill No. KOL11404-1-0026226 dated 06/04/2021, we found that the complainant had purchased 8 pcs chicken momo and cheese momo, 2 pepsi, 2 pcs burger for Rs.249/- along with extra 2 pcs cheese slice for Rs.30/- and OP No. 2 had also charged Rs.2.54/- for a Take Away Bag Small. The total price including GST charged from the complainant was Rs.332.6/-.

  So, there is no doubt that the complainant is a consumer.

            On further scrutiny of the documents annexed therein, we found that a photo copy of the take away bag is also filed wherefrom it is clearly noticed that the bag has printed logo of the OPs. It becomes an unfair trade practice if the OP charged for that bag from their customer. They cannot use the consumer as their advertisement agent.

            In this regard, we have relied upon the judgment of Bata India Ltd Vs. Dinesh Parshad Raturi, July, 2019 where a consumer was charged for a carry bag by Bata India Ltd and Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C, Chandigarh was pleased to hold that there is an unfair trade practice on the part of OP in compelling the complainant to purchase carry bag worth Rs.3/- and accordingly awarded for refund of the charges for the carry bag.

           In Big Bazar (Future Retail Ltd) Vs. Ashok Kumar R.P No. 975 of 2020 where Hon’ble National Commission was pleased to hold that “ its unfair trade practice of arbitrarily and high handedly imposing additional cost of carry bags on consumer at the time of making payment, without prominent prior notice and information before the consumer makes his choice of patronizing its retail outlets and before the consumer makes his selection of goods for purchase, as also without disclosing the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. The necessary notice/signs/ announcement/advertisement/warning should be in the place and manner as may enable the consumer to make his informed choice of whether or not to patronize its retail outlets, and whether or not to make his selections of goods for purchase from its retail outlets. The notice or information cannot be at the occasion of making payment, after the consumer has exercised his choice to patronize its retail outlets, and after he has made his selection of goods for purchase.” 

Relying upon the above said judgments, we hold there is certainly an unfair trade practice conducted by the OPs for charging for a carry bag at the counter while making payment and so, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to the relief (s).

            But in respect of the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- as prayed for, in our opinion,  if we can give a direction upon the OPs to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant, it would be just and appropriate.

            In the end, the complainant has succeeded in proving his case.

Hence,                         it     is   

ORDERED

That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs.

OPs are directed to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which an interest @10 % p.a. from the date of bill issued by OP No. 2 i.e. 06/04/2021 shall be paid by the OPs to the complainant, until realization in full.

Liabilities of OPs are jointly and severally.

If the awarded amount is not complied by the OPs within the aforesaid period, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Dictated and corrected by me.